Member Comments

Consumer Magazine - could you please explain your bizarre choice of of Tat Loo, chiropractor, as your representative critic of public expenditure on vaccination. Presumably most readers, whether pro- or anti-immunization, would prefer the informed view of a well-regarded specialist in public health and infectious disease.

Hi there,

For those of you looking for research based information about vaccination, the AVN is a valuable resource to make an informed choice about vaccination.

I just signed up to Consumer to gather info for our soon-to-arrive babe. I always thought Consumer aimed to provide unbiased information, but after reading this I have some concerns about not only this topic, but the rest of this website.
Where is the information on the sources of information? The sponsors of the research and trials? Were they double blind? Or were they paid for by those making the profits? Where is the information on the positives AND the negatives? The risks?
As a soon-to-be parent I want all of the info, not just one side and I really think the comments for no-vaccinating are just a token gesture in this article. This entire section could have been written by Ministry of Health. And that was not what I was looking for. I am a registered nurse and have had difficulty finding an impartial view of this issue.

Quick summary: Via modelling, given the current rate of vaccination in NZ, the risk to our precious children is lower by vaccinating.

As a parent of 3 children under 5, a sceptic, scientist, and mathematician, I evaluated mathematically whether to vaccinate my children:

There are risks in vaccinating. These are well documented in good scientific studies (clinical studies found via medline; unfortunately google and books have a lot of bad science).

There are risks in not vaccinating. There are nice mathematical models that estimate the risk given the population density, immunity levels, disease infection rates, etc.

What is the relative risk of a serious event? Code up a model, put in current estimates for parameters including uncertainty, do some MCMC to calculate a posterior, and we have an answer.

Generally by not vaccinating I would be increasing the likelihood of a serious event in my precious offspring by a estimated factor of 3.7 (95% CI 2.2-5.2). I explained to my monkeys that the mathematics proved it was good for them but they still cried a lot!

Now, lets say that 93% of the population was vaccinated. Then by not vaccinating I'd potentially be decreasing the chance of a serious event for my monkeys by a factor of 0.8 (95% CI 0.5-1.1). So in this case, from a personal perspective, not vaccinating would likely be best.

As parents of a 15 mth old we began reading as much as we could on this subject. To us it was a huge decision given the large number of vaccines and the early stage at which the first are recommended to be administer.

We decided not to vaccinate after weighing up the result of reading what must have been a few thousand pages of info ranging from books to published research reports and more.

I having nothing against those that wish to vaccinate and just encourage parents to read as much as possible so they can make their own informed decision. Read carefully and question question question as misinformation is everywhere.

Statements like "Have you not seen a body ravaged by polio?" by Footy fan are not helpful. I could counter by adding - Have you seen what a severe adverse reaction to a vaccine can cause? and support it with recent cases like http://www.perthnow.com.au/business/business-old/vaccine-family-to-sue-csl-over-flu-shots/story-e6frg2qu-1226080802868

But this is not helpful either. My Mother had Polio as a baby and has lived with the physical effects all her life. But even she crynges at the large number of vaccines recommended now.

Note: If i was travelling with a child in Africa then i would vaccinate for Polio given the prevalence of the disease there.

Do your own research, draw your own conclusions and be very careful about discussing your decision with those that have not researched the subject. Research is empowering and there are facts you will come across that leave you in no doubt as to why Health departments offer only limited information on the subject.

Also consider information that is not available, such as non-existant quality published epidemiological (mass population) studies on the efficacy and safety of vaccination campaigns - the potential risks to long-term health of receiving 30-40 vaccines before school age. Lack of willingness to fund such research by Governments may be explained by the potential repercussions of adverse findings.

One thing is certain, improved standards of living (better housing, diets and therefore health) have played a very big and important part in keeping many of these diseases under control. My research has led me to believe more so than vaccination.

As the Consumer report points out here, Pacific Islanders and Maoris incurred 90% of all Meningococcal B cases.(consider too that people in NZ who have vaccinated can and have contracted the same disease or a different strain - it's just a shame the Health Dept doesn't openly publish such data)

Better education and standards of living could have far better social outcomes for these communities than mass-vaccination campaigns.

Taken from the IMAC website

Thiomersal in vaccines given to NZ children
In 2000 New Zealand moved to phase out all thiomersal-containing vaccines in the NZ
childhood schedule vaccines. Note that some influenza vaccines contain thiomersal.
Thiomersal has never been present in the MMR vaccine or any other live vaccine.
When thiomersal-containing vaccines were being used prior to 2000, the maximum
number of doses of thiomersal-containing vaccines a 6 month old child might have
received was as follows:
• 3 doses of diphtheria-tetanus-pertussis vaccine,
• 3 doses of hepatitis B vaccine, and
• 3 doses of Hib vaccine.
This would have resulted in a total intake of 175 μg of ethylmercury, which is equivalent
to about 1.9 μg/kg body weight per week, for an average-sized baby. This level is well
below the World Health Organization (WHO) limit for methylmercury discussed above.
Studies measuring mercury levels in the blood of infants given thiomersal-containing
vaccines have indicated that their blood concentrations of mercury did not rise above
designated levels, except possibly transiently in a premature infant less than 1kg in
weight.
Thiomersal continues to be used in vaccines in many countries. The WHO’s Global
Advisory Committee on Vaccine Safety (GAVSC) has concluded that "there is currently
no evidence of mercury toxicity in infants, children or adults exposed to thiomersal3
containing vaccines" and that "there is no reason to change current immunisation
practices with thiomersal-containing vaccines on the grounds of safety".

Having read extensively both the for and against arguments for vaccination I found many 'unspoken' and worrying anomalies not generally presented to the general public by the governmental health campaigns. I also have found that the people who have researched the most, tend to be those who then opt for non-vaccination... (and this is despite the presented possibilities of various extremely nasty diseases - In which case the decision is based on much more than simply whim.)

The government takes a severely one-sided pro-vaccination stance, and dismisses any possible negatives - once it's committed to subsidising the programme it sort of has to...ditto the large pharmaceutical companies who produce, promote and sell the stuff.

Humankind has often got things very wrong:
asbestos, thalidomide, lead in paint, mercury in fillings, BPA in baby bottles... just a few from the top of my head and all pretty recent - and all used extensively and thought to be safe. Thimerosal might have been removed from vaccines now but it was very definitely present and harmful in the very recent past...so are you equally as sure about other ingredients. What about Formaldehyde - do want to inject that into a 6 week old baby? (.. at this stage he/she can barely digest its own mother's milk without difficulty). New Zealand is the only country who vaccinates this early...probably an arbitrary date set to co-incide with the hand over from midwife to family doctor - therefore purely for the medical profession's convenience.

Most parents want to do what is best for their child... and act accordingly either vaccinating or not. A parent who has chosen to vaccinate may not be most receptive to the possible negatives of vaccinations, as of course they would never do anything to harm their child. There are some very questionable side effects from the injections that are simply dismissed because it is almost expected. If anything else was causing reactions like this we might ordinarily question it or be worried but it's become accepted as the norm. There are some extremely nasty diseases out there, no-one is denying this...but if you think there is scaremongering - be assured it comes from both sides...
It's a very touchy subject -I would urge everyone to research both sides before making an informed decision...and before dismissing anyone who choses to question what exactly they are putting into their precious child as some wafty heretic.

darikidy, do you not know that since 2000 Thiomersol is not in any of the routine childhood vaccines in New Zealand? You would be better of campaigning against fish eating than vaccines if you want to avoid heavy metals in children.

Have you not seen a body ravaged by polio? I do not mind people having opinions, but please base them on FACT, not scaremongering.